Ex Parte Adhikari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 2013

11393212 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/393,212 03/30/2006 Akshay Adhikari 506014-US-NP 8715 48289 7590 04/30/2013 Cozen O''Connor 277 Park Avenue NEW YORK, NY 10172 EXAMINER TRAN, THINH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AKSHAY ADHIKARI, SACHIN GARG, ANJUR S. KISHNAKUMAR, and NAVJOT SINGH ____________ Appeal 2010-010241 Application 11/393,212 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JUSTIN BUSCH, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-010241 Application 11/393,212 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to transporting an authentication code in an RTP packet. Spec. ¶ 0001. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites: 1. A method of transporting authentication information in a media stream packet, comprising the steps of: computing, at a sender, the authentication information which authenticates the media stream packet; embedding, at the sender, the authentication information in one of a header and a payload of the media stream packet; and transporting, to a receiver, the media stream packet containing the authentication information which is embedded in one of the header and the payload of the media stream packet. EVIDENCE CONSIDERED The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Yoshimura US 2001/0048680 Dec. 2001 Newcombe US 2003/0172270 Sep. 2003 Fraser US 6,707,819 Mar. 2004 Sachin Garg, Navjot Singh, & Timothy Tsai, SRTP+: An Efficient Scheme for RTP Packet Authentication 1-8 (2004), available at http://pubs.research.avayalabs.com/pdfs/ALR-2004-001-paper.pdf (“Garg”). H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, & V. Jacobson, RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications (Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC No. 3550 (2003)) (“Schulzrinne”). Appeal 2010-010241 Application 11/393,212 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garg. Ans. 4-5. Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garg and Schulzrinne. Ans. 5-6. Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garg and Yoshimura. Ans. 6-7. Claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garg, Newcombe, and Yoshimura. Ans. 8-9. Claims 9 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garg and Fraser. Ans. 10. ISSUE Appellants argue that Garg merely discloses adding or appending a tag to each packet instead of embedding authentication information, as required by the independent claims. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 1-4. These arguments present us with the following issue: did the Examiner err in finding that Garg discloses “embedding, at the sender, the authentication information in one of a header and a payload of the media stream packet,” as recited in independent claim 1, and as commensurately recited in independent claim 12? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ Appeal 2010-010241 Application 11/393,212 4 conclusion. Except to the extent noted below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons regarding independent claims 1 and 12 set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Additionally, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding independent claims 1 and 12 for emphasis as follows. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Garg merely discloses adding or appending a tag to each packet instead of embedding authentication information, as is recited by the independent claims (App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 1-4). First, we do not agree with Appellants that the example in the Newton Dictionary definition referred to by the Examiner “has nothing to do with” the claimed embedding authentication information (Reply Br. 2). The example, used to demonstrate an interpretation of the broad term “embed,” pertains to inserting information, such as an object, in a document (see Ans. 12) and provides guidance as to the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art of computer technology. Dictionary definitions in tandem with the Specification can be informative to the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim. In re Trans Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of embedding based on Appellants’ Specification does not properly take into account detail explaining that “the RTP packet is extended by 32 bit fields and the authentication information can be embedded in the extended header.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. ¶ [0021]). We are not persuaded that extending a packet and then embedding information is distinguishable from adding or appending information. Nonetheless, consistent with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 4 (citing Garg at 3, ll.18-26; 4, Appeal 2010-010241 Application 11/393,212 5 ll. 1-4)), even under Appellants’ proposed interpretation, Garg discloses the disputed claim element. In particular, Garg discloses that “[t]he actual header extension is appended to the original header” and that use of a second location within that extension to carry authentication information is “convenient and simply takes advantage of the existing RTP specification.” Garg at 3; Fig. 3. Thus, consistent with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 4, 13), we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of embedding authentication information encompasses appending an authentication tag, as disclosed by Garg (Ans. 11-17). Although the Examiner’s current position is that independent claims 1 and 12 are only rendered obvious by Garg (Ans. 11), we decline to adopt the Examiner’s statement that Garg does not explicitly teach a media stream packet (Ans. 4, 15) and refer instead to Garg’s disclosure of an SRTP packet (see e.g., Garg at Fig. 1).1 Nonetheless, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Garg discloses “embedding, at the sender, the authentication information in one of a header and a payload of the media stream packet,” as recited in independent claim 1 and, as commensurately 1 Additionally, should Appellants select to continue prosecution, we recommend that the Examiner consider USPTO guidelines in determining whether the claims comprise statutory subject matter. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, at 2 (Aug. 2009), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08- 25_interim_101_instructions.pdf. With respect to claims 12-22, we also recommend reviewing the policy statement by former USPTO Director David J. Kappos regarding computer readable media. See David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Appeal 2010-010241 Application 11/393,212 6 recited in independent claim 12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 and dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22, not separately argued (App. Br. 11-14). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc